The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

few respondents in either community mentioned them at Time II (7.5% in Little Village versus6.3% in Pilsen) (Table 16.3).Crime and Safety Factors. The data on community problems indicate that crime andsafety were of concern to members of both communities, more so in Little Village than in Pilsen.Several questions addressed: the extent to which individuals were satisfied with the safety oftheir communities; their perceptions of the safety of their neighborhoods at night; whether or notthey were afraid to walk alone in the six-block area surrounding their residences; their degree ofworry that a family member might be a victim of crime in the coming year; and whether they ortheir family members had, in fact, been victims of some type of crime in the six months prior tothe interview.Ratings related to safety at night indicated an improvement in both communities,especially among respondents in Little Village. At Time I, 58.3% of respondents in LittleVillage felt that their neighborhood was very dangerous, as did 39.4% of respondents in Pilsen.The difference between the two communities was statistically significant (Chisquare = 6.998,df = 1, p # 0.01). At Time II, the difference no longer existed, due primarily to a much largerdecline in the proportion of respondents in Little Village who rated their community as “verydangerous” (30% in Little Village; 29.2% in Pilsen). This decline (reflecting an improved feelingof safety, although a still somewhat guarded one) was significant for respondents in LittleVillage (Chisquare = 14.509, df = 1, p # 0.001), but not for those in Pilsen.Responses to questions about fear of walking alone also indicated an improvement inLittle Village, but a slight deterioration in Pilsen. At Time I, almost all respondents in LittleVillage (92.7%) said they were afraid to walk alone within the area six blocks from their homes.16.8